Meaning: The quote you've provided is from journalist Jane Mayer and it references critics of the Bush administration who are particularly critical of its use of science and its human rights record. This quote touches on a complex and controversial topic that encompasses political decision-making, ethical considerations, and the intersection of science and policy. To fully understand its significance, it's important to delve into the context in which it was made and the issues it addresses.

During the Bush administration, which spanned from 2001 to 2009, there were several notable instances where the administration's use of science came under scrutiny. One such example is the debate surrounding climate change and the administration's stance on environmental policies. Critics argued that the administration disregarded scientific evidence and downplayed the urgency of addressing climate change, which had significant implications for environmental policy and international relations.

In addition to environmental issues, the Bush administration's approach to scientific research and its impact on human rights also drew criticism. The administration's policies on issues such as stem cell research, reproductive rights, and torture tactics in the context of national security raised concerns about the ethical and human rights implications of its decisions.

Jane Mayer, the journalist who made the quoted statement, is known for her investigative reporting on political and social issues. In her work, she has shed light on government policies, national security matters, and the intersection of politics and science. Mayer's comment reflects the perspective of those who were skeptical of the Bush administration's handling of scientific evidence and its implications for human rights.

The use of science in policymaking is a complex and contentious issue. On one hand, scientific evidence is often crucial for informed decision-making, particularly in areas such as public health, environmental protection, and technological innovation. On the other hand, the interpretation and application of scientific findings can be influenced by political agendas, corporate interests, and ideological considerations, leading to skepticism and criticism from various quarters.

In the context of human rights, the ethical implications of scientific advancements and their deployment in areas such as national security and law enforcement have been a subject of intense debate. The Bush administration's policies on interrogation techniques, surveillance, and the treatment of detainees raised questions about the ethical boundaries of using scientific knowledge and technology in ways that could infringe on individual rights and freedoms.

Critics of the Bush administration's human rights record and its use of science often pointed to the need for transparent and evidence-based policymaking, free from undue political influence and ideological biases. They advocated for a more rigorous ethical framework that would ensure the responsible and accountable use of scientific knowledge in governance and decision-making processes.

In conclusion, Jane Mayer's quote encapsulates the concerns of those who were critical of the Bush administration's approach to human rights and its use of science in policymaking. It reflects a broader conversation about the ethical and moral dimensions of political decision-making, the role of scientific evidence in governance, and the implications for individual rights and societal well-being. The issues raised by the quote continue to be relevant in contemporary discussions about the intersection of science, politics, and human rights.